Red Mosquito

4/5 wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

4/5 wrote:Good news, I'm pretty sure GH would get rid of the filibuster. So whenever he checks back in we should get a pretty good argument for the other side.

As a matter of personal ideology, I suppose I shouldn't mind the filibuster since it helps to prevent a party from implementing too much of its agenda. But the Constitution already has a hefty number of separations of power (three branches of government, plus a bicameral legislature) and it's daunting enough to get the quadfecta on all of them. Adding in another veto point through extraconstitutional matters is just overkill.

I also think that once a party has at least 50 senators that are united on a considerable agenda, the filibuster will be gone. It could have happened in 2017 but the GOP couldn't get their caucus united. It could very well happen in 2021 if the Dems storm to victory in the Senate and they aren't dependent on Joe Manchin being the median vote.

By that logic shouldn't it have happened in 2010 when Scott Brown denied the Democrats their 60th senator in the middle of attempting to pass the ACA?

I think an argument can be made that the filibuster sticks around not just to protect the minority party but because it can provide a convenient excuse for the majority party when they aren't united enough to get stuff done: just blame the filibuster.

4/5 wrote:By that logic shouldn't it have happened in 2010 when Scott Brown denied the Democrats their 60th senator in the middle of attempting to pass the ACA?

4/5 wrote:I think an argument can be made that the filibuster sticks around not just to protect the minority party but because it can provide a convenient excuse for the majority party when they aren't united enough to get stuff done: just blame the filibuster.

durdencommatyler wrote:

4/5 wrote:I think an argument can be made that the filibuster sticks around not just to protect the minority party but because it can provide a convenient excuse for the majority party when they aren't united enough to get stuff done: just blame the filibuster.

All the more reason to get rid of it.

digster wrote:I think all those reasons to avoid abolishing the filibuster are correct; it replaces morass for wild swings back and forth. But it's still probably the least worst option, particularly for Democrats, who are going to continue to bear the brunt of the negative effects of a Senate that is increasingly unrepresentative of the country. I think there's only shitty options here, and it may be the least shitty.

4/5 wrote:

digster wrote:I think all those reasons to avoid abolishing the filibuster are correct; it replaces morass for wild swings back and forth. But it's still probably the least worst option, particularly for Democrats, who are going to continue to bear the brunt of the negative effects of a Senate that is increasingly unrepresentative of the country. I think there's only shitty options here, and it may be the least shitty.

I think an argument can be made that the filibuster is the best protection Democrats have against entitlement programs getting decimated.

Mickey wrote:

4/5 wrote:

digster wrote:I think all those reasons to avoid abolishing the filibuster are correct; it replaces morass for wild swings back and forth. But it's still probably the least worst option, particularly for Democrats, who are going to continue to bear the brunt of the negative effects of a Senate that is increasingly unrepresentative of the country. I think there's only shitty options here, and it may be the least shitty.

I think an argument can be made that the filibuster is the best protection Democrats have against entitlement programs getting decimated.

Instead they're simply being slowly chipped away at without the possibility of any replacement, because of the filibuster.

4/5 wrote:

Mickey wrote:

4/5 wrote:

digster wrote:I think all those reasons to avoid abolishing the filibuster are correct; it replaces morass for wild swings back and forth. But it's still probably the least worst option, particularly for Democrats, who are going to continue to bear the brunt of the negative effects of a Senate that is increasingly unrepresentative of the country. I think there's only shitty options here, and it may be the least shitty.

I think an argument can be made that the filibuster is the best protection Democrats have against entitlement programs getting decimated.

Instead they're simply being slowly chipped away at without the possibility of any replacement, because of the filibuster.

Also true. But considering the makeup of government over the past couple of decades and what appears to be red-state advantages in the Senate in the future, that might be the least-bad option.

Mickey wrote:Early reports that RBG has died.

[Mario Kart voice] Here a'we go!

Mickey wrote:Early reports that RBG has died.

[Mario Kart voice] Here a'we go!

Green Habit wrote:

Mickey wrote:Early reports that RBG has died.

[Mario Kart voice] Here a'we go!

Here we go indeed.

I could see something like this:
--Trump appoints Amy Coney Barrett and the Republican controlled Senate quickly approves her, perhaps before the election.
--Dems win back the presidency and the Senate and retaliate by packing the Court with extreme prejudice.

We'll see how that holds up in a year or two from now.

Mickey wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

Mickey wrote:Early reports that RBG has died.

[Mario Kart voice] Here a'we go!

Here we go indeed.

I could see something like this:
--Trump appoints Amy Coney Barrett and the Republican controlled Senate quickly approves her, perhaps before the election.
--Dems win back the presidency and the Senate and retaliate by packing the Court with extreme prejudice.

We'll see how that holds up in a year or two from now.

Is there enough time to confirm a nominee before the election?